Do they just need to also give access to windows virtual machine to instantly be in the clear ? So let's just agree to disagree and while doing so, not resort to just insulting others or questioning their intelligence because of their opinion, OK?Ĭlick to shrink.The point I don't understand is that ultimately it mean the nvidia must be punished compared to an extremely similar service like Shadow, just because it's more specialized. But I've thought it over while playing Cyberpunk and still come out on my original stance.
While some of the responses have been toxic, I've almost been convinced to swap sides. If you don't think there should be a deal in the first place, that Nvidia is entitled to all revenue GeForce generates because the game is already paid for, I get it. And, while it's pure speculation on my part, the lack of 4/5ths of my Steam library on the service makes me doubt the deal Nvidia gives to devs/pubs is good, especially when half of my library is indies. or rooted in the "toxic and dangerous mindset of the death of ownership", I just think developers should be paid in the opportunity their game is used to make money for someone else. It's not that I'm schilling for EA, Microsoft, etc. But that's how I feel and I don't think I can be convinced otherwise. It sucks, yes, and I almost came around to the otherside of the argument because of just that when I realized I couldn't play Borderlands 3 like I am Cyberpunk 2077 right now. are legitimate comparisons.Īnd no, I don't think the buck stops with the fact that folks bought the games. And I don't think comparing the service to Parsec, general cloud computer services, GPUs(?), computers you buy, keyboards, HDMI, advertisements(?), Apple repair policy, etc. where content is king and you have to pay for said content giving your service its real value. Look I've laid out my argument twice, practically repeating myself, because I do think the most apt comparison is services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc.
0 kommentar(er)
